Talk:Przeworsk culture

Przework culture was definitely NOT Germanic

The arcticle contains errors claiming wrong ethnic background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.106 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the bearers of the Przeworsk Culture according to written and archaeological sources

by Marek Oledzki (Lodz)

According to the written sources of the early Roman Iron Age (Strabo, Tacitus, Ptolemaios, Cassius Dio) most areas of the Przeworsk Culture were settled by the people of the Lugians or - as some scientists put it - by the association of the Lugians tribes (Tac., Germ. 43). In the light of recent research work, its German ethnic character is undoubted, although in this connection some authors underline also its Celtic component. At the beginning of the Roman Iron Age this Latène component was assimilated by the Przeworsk Culture; since then, there is certainly no doubt that the Lugians despite, the Celtic sound of their name, have a German character. At the turn from the early to the late Roman Iron Age, the two tribes formerly named the Lugians are now referred to by the same name, the Vandals. As the sources clearly show, the identity of the Lugians and the Vandals is proven by the identity of the territories in which they appeared. This allows us to state that the extension of the Przeworsk Culture is the same as the settlement area of the Vandals, in particular, the northern, the eastern and the southern borders. The exception of the western border is explainable, as according to the written sources the Burgunds and the Siligans were located in the western area of the Przeworsk Culture and they, although closely related, can not be equated with the Vandals.

http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft40_1_en.html#oledzki

The final phase of the Przeworsk Culture

by Magdalena Maczynska (Lódz)

In the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century - in the stages C3-D - the Przeworsk Culture, which lasted in south and central Poland for nearly 500 years, went through a period of strong economic development. The region was relatively densely populated; however, the majority of settlements - nearly exclusively ceramics were found on the sites can not be dated more precisely than into the stages C2-D. The material from settlements is concentrated in Silesia and Minor Poland. In comparison to the earlier phases there are more settlements in the west Carpathians. This relatively stable condition broke down at the turn of the 4th to the 5th centuries, that is in the final phase of the stage Dl.

From the first half of the 5th century within the area of the Przeworsk Culture sites with finds of a so-called nomadic character as well as settlements of the North Carpathian Group are known. In the second half of the 5th century this area provided little material. There is only a small concentration of finds in central Poland. In the Jurassic area north of Kraków it is worth mentioning late metal objects from caves and from a refuge on a limestone rock. It seems that remnants of the early German population sought refuge there. On the other hand, no traces have been observed of contacts with the Slavic population which from the late 5th century onwards successively occupied the virtually deserted area of the Przeworsk Culture.

http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ufg/heft39_1_en.html (contributed by FourthAve)

The German site you quote does not call this culture Germanic, it calls the culture German. This is a worrying sign about the intentions of the authors.--Wiglaf 21:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Southern and central Poland was occupied by the Przeworsk Culture, which gained its name from the village of Przeworsk, situated in Lesser Poland (Maűopolska), where the first cemeteries typical of this culture were discovered. This culture emerged at the beginning of the second century bc and continued to thrive for several hundred years, right up until the Migration Period. The regions of Warmia and Mazuria (Mazury) were inhabited by representatives of the Western Balt Culture, which developed independently of its neighbours, and differed from them distinctly, bearing, however, a clear relationship to Baltic peoples. In contrast, during the first decades ad, an entirely new culture began to take shape in Pomerania. Archaeologists dubbed it the Wielbark Culture, after the site at Wielbark (currently Malbork-Wielbark), where the first cemetery of this culture was found. This area of Poland had previously been occupied by the Oksywie Culture, closely related to the Przeworsk Culture, but differing in many aspects from the subsequent Wielbark Culture.

Name

The article gives the impression that this culture is quite old. It's the title that interests me though. When did the term Pzeworsk culture first make its debut? I see that it's named after a town several hundred kilometers from the area designated on the article's map. Can anyone tell us the original author of the "name", and a date that it first appeared in some source? Thanks. Dr. Dan 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

From German wiki: Benannt ist die Kultur nach einem Brandgräberfeld bei Przeworsk in der Wojewodschaft Podkarpackie. --Lysy^talk 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And the date of the first publication of this work including the name "Przeworsk culture" was? Dr. Dan 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, when you have time, perhaps you can come up with the date of the work you referred to. Dr. Dan 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Polish wiki. The name stems from Hadaczek (explorations in 1905), but was widely used only since the 1930s. Juro 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gobbledegook in lead

The last sentence of the lead now reads "Assigns the Goths to the Przeworsk culture inland, but this culture was Vandalic with the Celtic culture in southern Poland was also influenced by the local Przeworsk culture[2]." (sic) Can someone work out what this is suppposed to mean, and if possible if it is correct? Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Useful source?

https://www.academia.edu/4115218/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

One strange thing about the WP article is that the Celts seem to be mentioned in pretty much all sources, but they've been purged here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

removed image

For future reference I have removed this map, which seems not to correspond either with any of our other maps, or with the maps found in published sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Przeworsk and other related archeological cultures around the year 300 BC.

I agree with you that this map is not the greatest, in terms of its depiction of the Przeworsk culture. However, I think that the major changes to the article text are a bit too much. You completely changed the section order, as well as removed sourced material, and along the way added text which does not have any. Also, archeologists today, consider that the population of central/easter Europe ebed and flowed, so it was never just early Slavic or Germanic. Also, cultures can be tricky, when it comes to determining ethnicity because they get addopted, great example of this is Hellenic culture, you can find examples of Greek-ish architecture as far as Armenia and Afghanistan, there were even Hellenistic Jews. So, I think the article should make reference to Vandals and early Slavs, but primarily focus on the artifacts themselves. --E-960 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Somewhat more relevant is this find from the 10th century which shows just how mixed the central Europe was link here: [1]. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: wow, isn't that a massive knee-jerk revert?[2] I also don't understand the relevance of your explanation above, which just seems to be a commonplace, and not a justification of your specific edits. The link you give is also clearly not an appropriate source for WP. Of course the Vandals should be mentioned, and of course it should be explained that many scholars believe the culture may have contained communities speaking several languages. You've deleted sourced information about such things. I see no justification above for removing the new sourced information about the earlier connections to the La Tène and Jastorf cultures which cited Andrzejowski 2010, nor any justification for reinserting the above map which is clearly in conflict with normal maps published by scholars. In fact, your edit summary seems to indicate that you did not even notice the new source? Please reconsider what you've removed. I intend to come back and edit again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to list the key changes caused by the big reversion:

• Reinsertion of the above unsourced map.
• Revert of opening line so that it once again defines the article as being "part of an Iron Age archaeological complex" without ever defining any such complex. Which complex?
• Removal of these paragraphs from lead, which summarize information in the body and sourceable to publications such as Andrzejowski 2010. Why?

The earliest form of the culture was a northern extension of the Celtic La Tène material culture which influenced much of continental Europe in the Iron Age, but it was also influenced by other material cultures of the region, including the Jastorf culture to its east and northeast, which is associated with the Suevian peoples known to classical authors, and early West Germanic languages. Later manifestations of the culture are associated with both the Lugii and Vandals, mentioned in classical sources.

• Revert to this confusing sentence describing the geographical location, which mixes mention of proposed outlier/influenced cultures into the definition of the core area. (There was also such an outlier in Thuringia. The whole topic of these apparently connected extensions needs work. But this edit takes us backwards.)

Andrew Lancaster version	E-960 revert/deletion
In its earliest form it was located in what is now central and southern Poland, in the upper Oder and Vistula basins. It later spread southwards, beyond the Carpathians, towards the headwaters of the Tisza river, and eastwards, past the Vistula, and towards the headwaters of the Dniester.	It was located in what is now central and southern Poland - the upper Oder to the Vistula basin, later spreading to parts of eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathia ranging between the Oder and the middle and upper Vistula Rivers and extending south towards the middle Danube into the headwaters of the Dniester and Tisza Rivers.

• Moving the section called "Society" back from third to first section of the main body. This is a strange sequence, and this section seems like someone's old notes? It begins with a typo, which was fixed in the reverted version, and then goes into discussion of wells etc.
• Influences section which was expanded with material from Andrzejowski 2010 and moved to 1st position, fully reverted, so all reference to the La Cloche culture deleted for example. Everything merged back into one paragraph. How is this an improvement?

Andrew Lancaster version

E-960 revert/deletion

Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Although there is no evidence of an actual migration, the Przeworsk culture appears relatively suddenly, manifested as an adaptation of the Celtic La Tene culture technology from the southwest, and was quite distinct from the preceding Pomeranian culture and Cloche culture. To its northwest, the Przeworsk culture also shows significant contact with the Jastorf Culture, associated with the spread of early Germanic languages, and the early Suevian peoples who were reported by Roman authors.

Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Continuity with the preceding Pomeranian culture is observed, albeit modified by significant influences from the La Tene and Jastorf cultures.

References

• Reverted wording change Przeworsk culture is connected->associated->connected with the Zarubintsy culture. "Connected" seems a very vague word. Why is this so important though? To me it looks like this was not really considered, but just happened because of the way this revert was done without detailed consideration.
• Complete deletion of the new section I made entitled Proposed correspondences to historic peoples which seems to go directly against the explanation for the revert given above:

• Removed totally: The Przeworsk culture was probably not a single ethnic or linguistic group. In classical ethnography, it is likely that it corresponds to the group of peoples known as the Lugii.
• Moved back to "Influences" section although this does NOT seem to match that description: The Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, however the culture has also been linked to the early Slavs,[8] and most likely was of mixed Slavic and Germanic nature. which I had changed to Among specific Germanic peoples known to later written history, the Przeworsk culture is often associated with the Vandals, although these were probably only one element within the culture. The culture has also been linked to the early Slavs.

To me it seems you have deleted quite a bit of sourced material and much of this was specifically clarifying both the likely connection to the Vandals and also the probable linguistic and cultural mixture represented by this archaeological culture. Concerning content, I am also concerned that we are giving such undue weight, and vague wording, concerning the old idea that this culture was linguistically Slavic. We need more specific explanation and good sourcing for that. Which archaeologists are still really arguing this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• The link I provided was not intended as a "source" to back up any particular statements in the article, it only served as an example of the discourse out there regarding archeology and the difficulties with trying to pin a specific culture/artifact to a particular peoples. Also, I don't mind you add a bit more information regarding the Vandals, however completely changing the article was a bit much, as well as removing old text and reference sources. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Also, I'm not sure why you included statements on West Germanic languages and the Suebi, it seem like going off on a tangent. I would simply say that the culture grew out of the Celtic La Tène, and had features similar to Jastorf and Zarubintsy. Also, btw... this very fact tends to point to the theory that this might have been a "mixed" culture. It has long been speculated that Lugi were a mix of Celts and Germanic peoples. So, the point I'm trying to make is this is not a clear cut case where Przeworks is Germanic or Slavic culture, and we should keep the article balanced. The culture probably originated with the mixed Celts/Germanic peoples and then picked up by the early Slavs shortly there after. --E-960 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please give an example of how your edits had anything to do with reinstating sources I had removed, or inserting assertions about "clear cut cases". To me it looks like you did not really look at what you were reverting. To a large extent what you did was that you deleted new material which was (for the first time) sourced to a relatively recent archaeological article. Clearly you did not look at that article. Perhaps you were confused because of the fact that I moved material around, but are you saying the current article structure (section titles, and the way material is divided between them, and the sequence they appear in) is especially good? Honestly I don't think you considered my edits in this way either? Easiest right now would be to revert back to my version and then make whatever small changes you think are needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As suggested I went ahead and e-added a good portion of the text you included, however I think the section order needed to be changed a bit. --E-960 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do you think "Society" and "Peoples" are good clear section names though? I suppose the Society section is meant to contain descriptions of the culture itself? And the Peoples section is meant to explain possible historically cultures who might have been part of this archaeological culture? I definitely recommend looking at the article of Andrzejowski. It also contains a lot more information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I agree the section names are not great, however there is not a lot of uniformity across Cultures articles, so it's difficult to pick a standard title for the section, I guess the "Society" section could just as well be called, "Characteristics" or something to that effect. --E-960 (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds better to me. If the names are not good then it can be difficult to work out which information should be in which section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)